Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Surrogate Mother's Suit Against Attorney and Doctor Proceeds
A New Jersey court has held that a suit against a lawyer and a doctor who arranged a surrogate pregnancy deal can go forward. The professionals are being sued for civil conspiracy, as well as legal and medical malpractice, for allegedly misleading the surrogate mother about her rights. The ruling came in A.G.R. v. Brisman , Mon-L-1012-08, a case in which a woman who agreed to be a surrogate mother later decided she wanted to keep the twin babies she bore. In a separate suit, she is seeking custody of the children.
The landmark 1988 state Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988), held surrogacy contracts unenforceable in New Jersey. Therefore, in New Jersey, custody of children born to surrogate mothers who want to retain custody is decided by the courts, in accordance with the best interests of the children involved. Baby M did not deal, however, with the liability of professionals who set up surrogacy arrangements. The A.G.R. v. Brisman case is a first in that it is seeking money damages for harms related to a surrogacy agreement.
Doctor Found Not Guilty in Rushed Transplant Case
The California surgeon charged with harming an organ donor in an effort to speed the harvest his kidney and liver was acquitted of the charge of abuse of a dependent adult on Dec. 18, 2008. Dr. Hootan Roozrokh is a transplant surgeon who was called to the bedside of the donor, a 25-year-old brain damage victim, in February 2006. He was there to remove the donor's organs as soon as death occurred, following the donor's removal from a ventilator. The doctor planned to use a technique called “donation after cardiac death,” which involves quick harvesting of organs immediately following the donor's cardiac death. The donor, however, did not die until eight hours after the ventilator was removed. In the interim, Dr. Roozrokh administered medications such as morphine to the donor, which the prosecution alleged were excessive and meant to hasten the donor's death. By the time the donor died, his organs were no longer viable and could not be used for transplant.
Nearly Simultaneous Deaths at Nursing Home Prompt Criminal Investigation
Three men died on Dec. 18, 2008, in a Long Island, NY, nursing home, prompting a police investigation as to the causes of death. All three deaths occurred on the third floor of the New Carlton Rehab and Nursing Center, beginning with a man who was discovered in his bed not breathing in the early hours of the morning. An hour later, two more men were found unconscious, and they later died. All three patients were gravely ill before their deaths, and there were no immediate signs of foul play. The possibility that the three simply died coincidentally at around the same time was considered highly probable, but autopsies were ordered to determine for certain the causes of death.
State Says Massachusetts Town's Ambulance Service Cut Corners
In December 2008, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) suspended the town of Hamilton's ambulance license after an investigation unearthed evidence that training and certification requirements for the town's emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were not being met. In Massachusetts, paramedics are required to receive 28 hours of initial training, and must attend annual refresher courses. In addition to the town, 24 individual EMTs were cited by the DPH for falsifying training records. The DPH suspended 13 of these individuals' licenses and has proposed that their licenses be revoked for periods up to one year, depending on the severity of each accused's infractions. The other 11 EMTs cited have received reprimands for falsifying their own continuing education training records.
In a release, DPH's Director of the Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality, Paul Dreyer, said, “This investigation has revealed serious problems in the way that the emergency medical services were delivered in the town of Hamilton. Training requirements are in place for a reason: to insure the highest quality of care for the residents of the Commonwealth.”
New Hampshire Jury Trials Put on Hold
The economic downturn has affected many sectors of society, including the court systems of the several states, which are being asked to cut their budgets. The State of New Hampshire's court system decided to save money by suspending jury trials for a month this year, putting on hold not only medical malpractice trials but also employment, matrimonial and other types of civil trials. The situation will stick attorneys and their clients not only with the prospect of delayed justice but also with the costs and inconvenience of rescheduling trial dates.
Surrogate Mother's Suit Against Attorney and Doctor Proceeds
A New Jersey court has held that a suit against a lawyer and a doctor who arranged a surrogate pregnancy deal can go forward. The professionals are being sued for civil conspiracy, as well as legal and medical malpractice, for allegedly misleading the surrogate mother about her rights. The ruling came in A.G.R. v. Brisman , Mon-L-1012-08, a case in which a woman who agreed to be a surrogate mother later decided she wanted to keep the twin babies she bore. In a separate suit, she is seeking custody of the children.
The landmark 1988 state Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988), held surrogacy contracts unenforceable in New Jersey. Therefore, in New Jersey, custody of children born to surrogate mothers who want to retain custody is decided by the courts, in accordance with the best interests of the children involved. Baby M did not deal, however, with the liability of professionals who set up surrogacy arrangements. The A.G.R. v. Brisman case is a first in that it is seeking money damages for harms related to a surrogacy agreement.
Doctor Found Not Guilty in Rushed Transplant Case
The California surgeon charged with harming an organ donor in an effort to speed the harvest his kidney and liver was acquitted of the charge of abuse of a dependent adult on Dec. 18, 2008. Dr. Hootan Roozrokh is a transplant surgeon who was called to the bedside of the donor, a 25-year-old brain damage victim, in February 2006. He was there to remove the donor's organs as soon as death occurred, following the donor's removal from a ventilator. The doctor planned to use a technique called “donation after cardiac death,” which involves quick harvesting of organs immediately following the donor's cardiac death. The donor, however, did not die until eight hours after the ventilator was removed. In the interim, Dr. Roozrokh administered medications such as morphine to the donor, which the prosecution alleged were excessive and meant to hasten the donor's death. By the time the donor died, his organs were no longer viable and could not be used for transplant.
Nearly Simultaneous Deaths at Nursing Home Prompt Criminal Investigation
Three men died on Dec. 18, 2008, in a Long Island, NY, nursing home, prompting a police investigation as to the causes of death. All three deaths occurred on the third floor of the New Carlton Rehab and Nursing Center, beginning with a man who was discovered in his bed not breathing in the early hours of the morning. An hour later, two more men were found unconscious, and they later died. All three patients were gravely ill before their deaths, and there were no immediate signs of foul play. The possibility that the three simply died coincidentally at around the same time was considered highly probable, but autopsies were ordered to determine for certain the causes of death.
State Says
In December 2008, the
In a release, DPH's Director of the Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality, Paul Dreyer, said, “This investigation has revealed serious problems in the way that the emergency medical services were delivered in the town of Hamilton. Training requirements are in place for a reason: to insure the highest quality of care for the residents of the Commonwealth.”
New Hampshire Jury Trials Put on Hold
The economic downturn has affected many sectors of society, including the court systems of the several states, which are being asked to cut their budgets. The State of New Hampshire's court system decided to save money by suspending jury trials for a month this year, putting on hold not only medical malpractice trials but also employment, matrimonial and other types of civil trials. The situation will stick attorneys and their clients not only with the prospect of delayed justice but also with the costs and inconvenience of rescheduling trial dates.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?